Can the forward march of Labour be restarted?

.

The situation that the left finds itself in after the defeat of the McDonnell bid for the Labour leadership is a complex one. A bit of a debate has broken out about this around a statement issued by Socialist Resistance (SR) This was published on Liam Mac Uaid’s blog :

The key passage is: “McDonnell’s defeat throws the Labour left into serious crisis. No spin can hide it. The project of reclaiming the Labour or the idea that the Labour Party is a fruitful arena for the left to work in have been dealt a devastating blow.

“All this has implication for Respect, which should be taking the initiative to open or re-open a dialogue with those on the left who are currently not in Respect as to how they see the way forward.

“The Morning Star and the CPB are a case in point. They are likley to find it increasingly difficult to cling to a policy of reclaiming Labour. Apparently a new discussion has already opened up on this internally in the CPB. The Morning Star had already called a conference in June on “Politics After Blair” at which the issue will now be unavoidable.

“But Respect needs to be open and flexible in this situation to any new forces from the Morning Star or the trade union left. It should do whatever is necessary to ensure that new forces have space to make their influence felt. If it can do this it could break it out of its current impasse and open up a new stage of development.
“Respect’s task in this process is to turn the tide of politics back towards the left. Rebuild ideological and practical opposition to the market. Work with the left in the unions to build an independent pluralist left alternative alongside the struggle to regenerate the unions and rebuild trade union strength and organisation.”

To which I posted a comment to the effect that SR are making two mistakes: i) in not understanding that Respect is not a vehicle around which left unity can be built; and less explicably ii) that SR seem to completely fail to understand the political perspective of the CP.

I concluded my initial remarks by saying that currently “the building blocks for any serious alternative to Labour are utterly absent, but where the situation isn't hopeless either.”

Given the undemocratic manoeuvrings in and around Respect, the media galavanting of George Galloway, and the dispersal of the layer of left social democrats who had aggregated around the Socialist Alliance in various parts of the country, then I would characterise Respect thus: “Who is Respect? Galloway or the SWP? Anyone else? Will either of those forces play the productive role you are calling on them to play? If there is no actually existing force within Respect who will steer the organisation to play the role you think it could play, then how could it happen?

“Even were the SWP or Galloway to have a damascene conversion, would anyone on the activist left trust them? No-one is going to join Respect, or particularly want to work with them. The whole project is basically an embarrassment now.

“If we are looking for a left unity project, then we have missed the boat. The wave of left activists who left the labour party after Clause IV and over the Iraq war could have been attracted to an organisation that respected labour movement norms of behaviour. But were never going to be attracted to respect.”

SR are utterly self delusioonal if they believe that the CP or any significant left from the unions would touch Respect with a barge. Even were the Political Committee of the CP so minded, and I have no reason to think they are, then the membership would probably not agree to it.

The failure of McDonnell’s campaign has produced unhelpful knee-jerk reactions from Respect and the Socialist Party that the Labour Left should join them in their equally unsuccessful campaigns outside the Labour party. They remind me of the mayor of Amity, swearing that the water is safe. For example Thornett writes: "It¹s right to say to the Labour left, and those like the CPB (and some of the trade union left) who have clung to a Reclaim Labour policy for so long that after the McDonnell collapse the only rational conclusion in the cold light of day is that the Labour left has no useful future in the Labour party. There is no point in saying anything else."

In fact this approach is completely misguided. Instead of looking at whether we can reconstitute the greatly diminished left around already flawed projects, we need to take stock of the current political situation.

The overwhelming features are i) that the right within the Labour Party are utterly triumphant, and their victory is structurally irreversible. ii) The Labour party has failed to make the same shift to the right with its electoral base – the enduring progressive and social democratic attitudes of labour voters was well described recently on the SWP blog, Lenin’s Tomb ; iii) that the far left have failed to break that progressive base away from electoral loyalty to the Labour party; iv) the unions – on the whole - maintain ideological and political opposition to New Labour values, as can be seen by the way the unions make the running in opposing PFI, Academies and private equity. v) the structural problems of the unravelling British state.

So how can we seek to harness the positive aspects of the current situation to strengthen the left?

Alan Thornett has replied to me and asked whether I think Respect’s genuine electoral successes are the “wrong type of voters”. In a sense they are, but not in the sense he implies. Respect has done well particularly with that minority of voters for whom the war is the overriding political issue, but for the majority of the working class that is not the case, and opposition to the war has been subsumed into the general cynicism about politics.

This is where SR’s misunderstanding of the CP’s position is clear, because the CP are talking some sense over this issue:

As Robert Griffiths, the CP General Secretary: recently wrote : “But what is needed now more than ever is for the trade union movement, once again, to take on its historic responsibility to ensure the existence of a mass party of labour. For all the assistance that socialists and communists can render, the unions alone have the human, financial and organisational resources, as well as the class interest, to take the necessary steps.

“Together with the non-sectarian left, they need to work out a political strategy which takes account of current realities. For example, most major unions remain affiliated to the Labour Party and are unlikely to leave it in the near future.
“The first steps in this direction might be for all the major unions to affiliate and participate fully in the Labour Representation Committee. Deals between union leaders in smoke-free rooms to win resolutions at Labour Party conference are not enough. The active involvement of unions and their members in the LRC would be the clearest declaration of political intent.

“The LRC could itself go the extra mile and allow full membership status to socialist organisations including the Communist Party, respecting their right to participate independently in elections in return for an agreement not to campaign for the dismantling of the Labour Party through further union disaffiliations.
“In their relations with the Labour Party, unions should stop all financial, logistical and political support for MPs who consistently vote against key union policies. “

SR are correct to highlight the Morning Star conference as important, not least because the CP still able to punch above their weight, and alongside John McDonnell, we also have Ken Livingstone and Jon Cruddas attending. At the deputy leadership hustings at GMB congress last week Cruddas came out in favour of starting to renationalise public utilities.

The Labour Left were crushingly defeated in the PLP, but the McDonnell campaign has gathered together a nucleus of activists, who are less isolated and more motivated than they were before the campaign. It is as fruitless for us to argue with then that they should leave the party as for them to argue we should join it – comrades need to come to their own conclusions.

The way forward is for all the left, inside and outside the Labour party, to promote the trade unions in exercising their own political voice. By and large, the unions will not abandon their stake in the labour party until they have exhausted its historical usefulness. But currently they are not making enough demands on the party, and so not testing the usefulness of the link.

The Labour Representation Committee could become a vehicle for the unions to exercise collective political voice and if a substantial section of organised labour is to draw the conclusion that a party of labour needs to be refounded, as they effectively did in 1931, then the LRC could be the body around which that debate tales place.

Of course there are serious obstacles, not least of which is the LRC’s requirement for Labour Party membership, which is a serious obstacle to many grassroots trade unions and community activists. But again the way forward is for local trade union bodies to affiliate and open a dialogue about being able to send delegates who are not individual LP members.

In the meantime, we have largely missed the boat in England of building an electoral alternative to New Labour. There may still be a case of standing against Labour, but this can only be done by building grassroots links first, not by building the roof before the walls like Respect and the CNWP have done.

There is serious work that can be done, but the vehicle for that work is not Respect nor the CNWP, the focus remains where it perhaps always should have been, with organised Labour in the mass organisations of our class.

Deputy leadership candidates interview

Socialist Campaign Group News has conducted an interview with each of the six contenders for the Labour Party deputy leader.

Jon Cruddas comes over as by far the best candidate, not only in terms of policy content but because he answers the questions clearly without any beating round the bush.

Should the government halt further privatisation in the NHS?
Jon Cruddas: Yes. I’ve called for a moratorium on private sector involvement in the NHS. I think we urgently need to take stock of where we are and what is and isn’t working. I also think that the pace and scale of reform has left the NHS and the people who work in it reeling.

In order to tackle the gender pay gap, do you believe the government should legislate for mandatory pay audits?
Jon Cruddas: Yes. I was disappointed that the Prosser Commission didn’t recommend it. There is an enduring 17 per cent gender pay gap.

Should Trident be replaced by a new generation of nuclear weapons?
Jon Cruddas: No. I voted against Trident. Trident and any upgrade are relics of another era. The events of July 7 2005 demonstrate that we face very different security threats.

Is the government pursuing the correct policy in Iraq?
Jon Cruddas: It is withdrawing troops but I think we need to review whether that is being done speedily enough. My view is that they should be drawing in multilateral forces and using diplomacy to try and find a settlement to the whole Middle East problem.

Should the government reject the hostile campaign of the US administration towards the Hugo Chávez government in Venezuela, which has overseen enormous social progress that has been repeatedly endorsed by the Venezuelan electorate?
Jon Cruddas: Chavez heads a democratically elected government which is doing amazing things for the poor. Any interference by the US or any other state should be rejected.

In contrast none of the other candidates gave a clear answer about privatisation of the NHS. Blears and Benn rather mendaciously redefined the issue as if the NHS cannot be privatised if “treatment free at the point of use” is still supported. Peter Hain defended his us of the private sector in Northern Ireland. Alan Johnson said: “Private innovation and competition can be beneficial”

All of the candidates except Jon Cruddas support nuclear weapons. Benn argued: “In the differently dangerous world we now live in, I don't think we should give up our deterrent.”, and he cheekily said that Trident replacement was necessary because it was a manifesto commitment.

On the question of Chavez, Hilary Benn thinks the real issue is falling into the trap of anti-Americanism; and Hazel Blears lectured the Socialist Campaign Group over the need to stay on the “centre ground” of British politics. Alan Johnson clearly believes that Britain’s relationship with the USA is too important to jeopardise: “Britain's relationship with the US will be led by Gordon Brown, but I will support him in any way I can. Whilst Gordon is wanting to maintain a strong relationship with the US, I firmly believe that he will not shy away from any issue, such as this, in private.”

All the candidates expressed support for extending council housing, but Alan Johnson worryingly said: “Borrowing against an authority's rental income could be a source of funding. ” I have a suspicion that the Brownite right are contemplating allowing local authorities to set up ALMOs themselves that can borrow money at commercial rates – so they will be publicly owned commercial companies.

Cruddas: We have to return to class politics

.
Thursday's Morning Star carries the following very interesting interview with Dagenham MP JON CRUDDAS, who is the only Labour deputy leadership contender who isn't in the Cabinet. As I have argued on this blog, trade union backing has turned Jon into a strong candidate. His campiagn is significant as being the vehicle by which the trade unions can express their disatisfaction with the government's current course

Morning Star editor, John Haylett Writes:

ALONE among the Labour deputy leadership hopefuls, Dagenham and Redbridge MP Jon Cruddas does not want the job to come gift-wrapped with the deputy prime minister label.

"I don't see the job as a stepping stone to the baubles, country houses and so on," he makes clear.

In his opinion, there are too many people in positions of influence in the Labour Party whose vision is of a "virtual party, a message delivery system," which concentrates, US-style, on a tiny proportion of swing voters and key constituencies located in the mythical country of Middle England.

"They regard the ideas of a political party and membership mobilisation as old-fashioned, believing that the future should be decided like a market strategy."

Cruddas is also the only contender who has not sat in the heart of the Cabinet loyally parroting the new Labour neoliberal and pro-imperialist line, although, for a current outsider, he began as an insider, working in 10 Downing Street during the first Blair government.

"I recall sitting in Downing Street in 1998-9 when BMW pulled the plug on Rover and one of the advisers said that this was marvellous news - 'a great opportunity to move from the old industrial economy to the new knowledge economy,' based on new technology."

Such people, who had the Prime Minister's ear, saw the new Labour government as ushering in a new epoch, which would remove the Labour Party from the working class, creating a new economy and new support base for the government.

Cruddas points out that only about one in five jobs is in the knowledge sector, with 80 per cent still taking a traditional form, although, increasingly, based on low skills, low wages and done by women.

"To move forward, the first step is to look at the economy as it is, not at some kind of dream world," he says.

"They have this idea that the government should remove itself from the economy and we have to confront that debate and return to class politics," Cruddas declares.

Deindustrialisation has certainly hit his own constituency, with car assembly at Ford Dagenham ending in 2000 and causing a huge effect on attitudes and voting patterns.

"There has been a big decline in support for Labour and the largest drop has been in social groups D/E, whose attitudes are coloured by insecurity in work, a shortage of council housing and problems in accessing public services," he explains.

"Those who backed new Labour and still do are social groups A/B, many of whom are the new knowledge economy professionals."

Since Labour won the 1997 election, it has shed 4.5 million voters, the vast bulk of whom fall into four main groups.

• The manual working class, which has seen well-paid jobs exported to low-wage economies

• Public-service workers, who resent private-sector penetration and government "reforms"

• Black and ethnic minorities, who have reacted against the Iraq war and ministerial racist scapegoating

• Urban intellectuals who have switched, largely to the Liberal Democrats, over the war.

A recent YouGov poll revealed that 15 million people self-identified as Labour voters, but one-third of them said that they would not vote Labour under present circumstances.

"The important point is that these voters are not switching to the Tories, which means that it is possible to rebuild the Labour Party as a modern, pluralist, federalist democracy," Cruddas insists.

However, he is aware that, in a number of areas, including his own, disillusioned working-class voters are switching to the racist British National Party.

"About 10,000 people voted BNP in my area. That doesn't mean that there are 10,000 nazis. These are insecure and vulnerable people, for whom, as far as they are concerned, the Labour Party has failed them," he states.

Unlike neighbouring MP Margaret Hodge, whose response to this phenomenon was to wallow in the gutter with the BNP by proposing discrimination in housing against recent migrants, Cruddas has worked the streets with a broad coalition of anti-racist groups.

In response to the lies peddled by the BNP, he has delivered the excellent factual newspapers prepared by Searchlight, the anti-fascist organisation, door-to-door.

It is an uphill job, especially since, while the BNP concentrates its headline propaganda against Muslim religious symbols, there is a material basis for the refusal to vote Labour any longer.

"They won't vote Tory on class grounds, but they see the main parties as interchangeable," says Cruddas.

"We need to talk to people, change the debate and see how to re-enfranchise working people."

The scale of the problem becomes apparent when he reports on some of the problems coming into his regular constituency surgery and affecting the living standards of his constituents - a Lithuanian construction gang being fed stale bread and cold beans and paid £15 a day and a roofer whose rate for the job has fallen by £2.50 an hour in six months.

And there's even one man who has put a cooker in the shed at the bottom of his garden and rents it out to hot-bedding migrants working in the shadow economy.

"So, you have a combination of exploitation, abuse and criminality," Cruddas comments.

He is passionate about employment rights, not only for indigenous people but also for the large number of undocumented workers whose ruthless exploitation also drives down the living standards and expectations of everyone else.

He recalls with anger that, on the same Friday morning that 125 Labour MPs backed a Trade Union Freedom Bill initiated by, among others Cruddas and John McDonnell MP, former leftwinger and trade union official turned new Labour minister Jim Fitzpatrick filibustered to talk out a Bill on agency workers' rights.

The Dagenham MP believes that it is necessary to tighten regulation of employment agencies and to insist on the kind of public procurement clauses on fair pay and non-discrimination that Ken Livingstone introduced in the Greater London Council days, before the Tory government outlawed them.

Cruddas was among those who addressed the May Day amnesty protest in Trafalgar Square, calling for regularisation of undocumented workers.

"This is a huge problem. There are a third of a million people in London alone with no legal status. If we are not prepared to acknowledge their existence, they will be open to the worst abuses," he says.

So, what are the policies on which Cruddas will campaign for the deputy leadership and pursue his campaign to rebuild the Labour Party as a "modern, pluralist, federalist democracy?"

Apart from workplace rights, he insists on the need for an upsurge in council house building and notes ruefully that, at recent hustings, Cabinet members who have said nothing on the subject in years have jumped on the council housing bandwagon.

"We've passed motions on this at party conference for four years and had the door slammed firmly in our faces, but there are now 100,000 more on the council house waiting list in London since 2003 and a total of 1.6 million people on waiting lists."

Private construction companies constantly bank land, while complaining about "red tape" restrictions on where they may build, but they stick rigidly to building 170,000 units a year, guaranteeing a real-terms annual price rise.

"We used to build 200,000 council homes a year," says Cruddas, pointing out that the government's compliance with "the EU golden rule" of a borrowing limit of 3 per cent of GDP lies behind its determination not to increase the public-sector borrowing requirement.

In his view, this is "unsustainable. It has to change. It is an exercise in political will."

On public services, he wants a moratorium on the involvement of the private sector, saying that the necessary first step is to stop rigging markets in favour of the privateers.

"In the NHS, there is low morale and public support is in decline as a result of the internal market. Paper work, which used to take up 4 per cent of costs, is now 11 per cent and privately provided operations cost 11 per cent more than NHS operations."

His opposition to Trident is based on it being a "relic from a previous era, the cold war," which was useless to defend people on public transport targeted by terrorists on July 7 2005.

Cruddas voted for the invasion of Iraq, explaining: "I saw the case for removing a tyrant who was a threat because of his possession of weapons of mass destruction and who had already used them against his own people.

"I now state unequivocally that I was wrong, not only over the original premise but also on account of the consequences since," he admits.

"If the Democrats in the US can begin to debate a framework for withdrawal, why can't Labour in this country?"

So, if he stands on a left alternative to new Labour neoliberal orthodoxy, why didn't he sign up to John McDonnell's leadership campaign, which shared many of his policy priorities?

"I held out until a late stage, until it was clear that he wasn't going to get enough votes, since even Campaign Group members were signing up for Gordon Brown.

"There was a strong argument for a contest, but it wasn't going to happen."

Those who back Cruddas believe that he would have isolated himself by supporting a doomed McDonnell challenge and that the policy priorities that he champions would have been "drowned out" and discounted.

Whatever, the labour movement and, especially, the left have a choice - back a candidate who speaks out on many of the issues laid out by McDonnell or take part in a beauty contest of new Labour Cabinet members.

When you look at it like that, ruffled feathers and hurt feelings aside, it seems an easy decision to make.

Ken Livingston backs Cruddas

.
Ken Livingstone has declared his support for Jon Cruddas to be Deputy Leader of the Labour party, praising the Dagenham MP's position against "Britain being saddled with the immense cost of developing a new generation of nuclear weapons".The London mayor also commended his stance on domestic issues including combating poverty, fighting racism, expressing support for better public transport and trade union links.

"I am delighted to give him my full support," Livingstone said. "He will be a fresh voice helping to renew Labour at this important time."

"Jon Cruddas has impressed me with his thoughtfulness and tenacity and I very much hope that Labour members will back him to become the next deputy leader of the party," he added.

Unite, the 'superunion' created by the merger of the T&G; and Amicus, is the largest Labour Party affiliate with 1.39 millions members who will have a vote in the contest. It has announced it believes Jon Cruddas to be the best deputy leader candidate of the six, and will urge members to vote for him.

Joint general secretary Derek Simpson said: "Jon Cruddas' stated policies mirror our members' desire for better job security, decent pensions, affordable housing and public services provided by the public sector.

"Jon is unlike any other candidate standing for the deputy leadership - he alone is calling for a change of direction in order to reconnect with the Labour Party's core supporters."

Unite said it wanted a government agenda focused on supporting working people, a halt to private sector involvement in public services, an end to NHS cuts and improved rights for agency workers.

And it said it wanted to work towards 'Warwick 2', a successor to the 2004 deal between the government and the unions over labour policy and trade union law. (Although the fact that the original Warwick agreement has still not been implemented by the government may be of more relevance!)

Meanwhile it seems that the GMB and UNISON may well back Peter Hain. This is the feeling I am getting talking to officers of the GMB, and is due to the ill-advised remarks attributed to Jon Cruddas about reducing the union block vote at conference from 50% to 33%. I say attributed to Jon Cuddas, becasue I have not been able to find any original article or source where Jon Cruddas actually says this

Jon Cruddas interviewed

.


Interesting interview with Jon Cruddas from Labour Home.

In particular he addresses the importance of the Deputy leader contest, not as a side show, but as an important arena for discussing ideas and policies.

Jon explains the importance of supporting the Agency workers bill, an important issue for the trade unions, and also the need for addressing the failure of the market in housing, including council housing.

He is quizzed about his past as a Blairite, and is not entirely convincing by saying that he hasn't changed his views, and the party has changed so his previously stance on the right has now become the left. This doesn't entirely ring true given he has moved to now oppose the Iraq war, his developed critique of New Labour as an electoral machine that inhibits progressive change, and his demands for a change of direction.

In policy terms Jon Cruddas does not represent a complete break with the failed policies of Blairism, for example he supports ID cards. However, he has led the opposition to University Top Up fees. He does dance around some issues, for example saying he isn't necessarily opposed to Academies, but saying he opposed one in his own constituency and believes there should be a level playing field, so that when local authorities refuse Academies they are not taken off of the capital building programme. (In effect this would kill the Academy priogramme stone dead, as local authorities only take them becasue they are not given choice).

It is important not to build Cruddas into something he is not. He is not a class struggle socialist - however he is arguing for a break with the policy agenda of New Labour, and for aligning policy towards delivering benefits for working people.

These are messages that the trade union movement should support, as part of articulating the political demands of organised labour. The main ideological oppostion to New labour is now coming from the trade unions, over PFI, over rights for agency workers, over Academies, over private equity.

In order to renew the political movement of the working class after the defeat of Blairism we need to take every opportunity to encourage the unions to develop their own political voice. Supportin JOn Cruddas is a good signal that under Gordon Brown, we want to see some changes.

Britain's biggest union backs Cruddas

.
Britain’s largest union, UNITE, has pledged support for Jon Cruddas in his campaign to be deputy leader of the Labour Party. I believe that Ed Blisset, influential London regional secretary of the GMB is supporting Cruddas, the GMB as a whole will decide at Congress in June. Tribune has also voted to support Jon Cruddas.

As I have argued all along: The union leaders want influence, and also want a change of direction. They will reason that backing Brown keeps them close to him, and they could maximise pressure on the new PM by backing a deputy leader closer to the unions’ agenda. As has been shown at the last two party conferences, the union leaders are very disciplined (or spineless, depending on your perspective) at sticking to their own agenda, and not supporting left initiatives over Iraq, etc. Cruddas himself has a good prospect of being not the “left candidate” but the “unions’ candidate”, in the same way that Callaghan was for leader. I think those union leaders wanting to pull Labour towards their own agenda may back Brown and Cruddas.

So why does Cruddas suit the union leaders' agenda? It seems many on the left have missed the fundamental dynamic. The Labour Party has institutionally embedded neo-liberalism into its DNA, yet this places the Parliamentary Labour Party in a prolonged structural antagonism with the Party’s base of support within the Trade Unions. Triangulation also means that Labour Policies are not engaged with the priorities of working class voters in safe seats, which leads to apathy, disengagement and even some voting for the BNP.

Despite his background as a Blairite, Cruddas does understand this dynamic, and has spoken against it. In his epilogue to the Rowntree Trust’s report on the far right Cruddas wrote: “The originality of New Labour lies in the method by which policy is not deductively produced from a series of core economic or philosophical assumptions or even a body of ideas, but rather, is scientifically constructed out of the preferences and prejudices of the swing voter in the swing seat. It is a brilliant political movement whose primary objective is to reproduce itself – to achieve this it must dominate the politics of Middle England. The government is not a coalition of traditions and interests who initiate policy and debate; rather it is a power elite whose modus operandi is the retention of power. … … At root the gearing of the electoral system empties out opportunities for a radical policy agenda. On the one hand, policy is constructed on the basis of scientific analysis of the preferences of key voters; on the other, difficult issues and the prejudices of the swing voter are neutralised. Labour have become efficient at winning elections and being in government yet within a calibrated politics where tenure is inversely proportionate to change. As a politician for what is regarded as a safe working class seat the implications of this political calibration are immense. The system acts at the expense of communities like these – arguably those most in need. The science of key seat organisation and policy formation acts as a barrier to a radical emancipatory programme of economic and social change.”

Get that: “a radical emancipatory programme of economic and social change” It doesn’t matter whether or not Cruddas is sincere, or whether he will deliver. A vote for him is a vote for a change of direction from New Labour towards: “a radical emancipatory programme of economic and social change”

The importance for the left is that it is the trade unions who are providing the main ideological opposition to neo-liberalism, against private equity, against PFI and in favour of immigrant rights. If the union leadserships and trade union branches and committees send a clear signal that they are opposed to the main thrust of Gordon Brown's agenda than that increases the chance of real opposition to the government.

Jon Cruddas on race, class and New Labour

.

It was noticeable that Labour Party deputy leader candidate Jon Cruddas was almost the only politician to address the recent demonstration by immigrant workers in London, organised by the “Strangers into Citizens” campaign, that seeks to give a path to citizenship for those without legal immigration status.

On Jon’s website there is a very interesting essay that he recently published on the subject of migration.

It is a substantivce argument, and one worth reading in full. It is interesting that he attributes part of the success of the BNP to the fact that "New Labour has quite consciously removed class as an economic or political category."

The following are some extracts:

JON CRUDDAS WRITES:

Race, Class and Migration: Tackling the Far Right

Over the last few years, many of our communities have experienced extraordinary rates of change – primarily driven by mass migration, changing patterns in the demand for labour and the dynamics of the housing market. The policy issues thrown up by these forces have been diffi cult for the state to comprehend; not least because many of the people affected by the changes do not show up in the census and therefore do not exist for the purposes of public policy making.

Moreover, the communities undergoing these rapid demographic changes are often the most poorly equipped to do so, and maintain high levels of poverty, social immobility and poor public services. Poorer, low-cost housing areas, primarily in urban settings, are taking the strain in managing migration flows. The impact of migration on the labour and housing markets has triggered tensions and threatened community cohesion. In particular communities, the local population grows at a faster rate than the state's refinancing of public services, as decisions on funding are based on an out-of date formula for resource allocation.

Yet the configuration of the electoral system pushes politicians into dangerous territory when addressing race and migration. The preferences and the prejudices of the swing voter in the marginal constituency retain a disproportionate influence within our political system. As such, the modern politician seeks to neutralise – or triangulate around – difficult political terrain. There is no better example of this terrain than the current debates around race and demographic change.

Those negatively affected by migration perceive government efforts to tackle immigration as being woefully inadequate, as the issues which concern them are not sufficiently reported in the media and therefore are not commonly understood. This underreporting, combined with the strain placed on existing services by the recent expansion in migration, has led to disillusionment and caused voters to seek populist answers.

One of the key factors behind the emergence of the extreme right is this breach between the formal state perception of the borough and the day to day dynamics at work within the locality. The incremental investment in public services by the state on the basis of out of date population statistics cannot begin to deal with concerns that demographic change is occurring whilst resources are becoming scarcer.

Therefore, this has helped to form the perception that these changes are actually reducing the social wage. This perception could be expressed in terms of growing health inequalities, or reduced access to social housing or even declining hourly wage rates as the dynamic of migration triggers a race to the bottom of working conditions. As such, issues of resource allocation are seen by many as issues of race - which becomes the prism through which, for example, health, housing and wage inequalities are viewed. The most acute politicisation of resources concerns housing. Yet it is considered to be driven by race rather than systematic failure to provide low rent social housing units. It is here that the issue of working class disenfranchisement comes into play. New Labour has quite consciously removed class as an economic or political category.

It has specifically calibrated a science of political organisation – and indeed an ideology – to camp out in middle England with unarguable electoral successes. Yet the question remains as to whether the policy mix developed to dominate a specific part of the British electoral map actually compounds problems in other communities with different histories and contemporary economic and social profiles. It is not just about social housing, although this is the most concrete manifestation of the core problem. It is about the ability of the state to anticipate and invest in the poor urban communities that take the strain of rapid demographic change.

Jon Cruddas in the press

.


In an interview on GMTV on Sunday, left candidate for the Labour Party deputy leadership Jon Cruddas branded Tony Blair as delusional for saying that last Thursday’s defeats for Labour were a “springboard for future success”

Jon warned that the party is in “real, serious trouble”, having lost around 500 councillors. One of the reasons that Cruddas’s campaign is so important is that he understands the importance of how Labour needs to address its progressive electoral constituency, rather than spin policies for undecided voters in middle England. As Cruddas notes, the councilors are “the core activists, and they have been defeated”.

It has been a good few days for Jon’s campaign, with an extended interview in today’s Independent , where he comes over very well. Particularly in his recognition that the party needs to change direction, and be more supportive not only of left policies but also of the unions: “We can't go down this route of a "virtual party" where members are just cheerleaders for people at the top. We need to involve members much more. If they had been listened to over issues like top-up fees, or the need to build more council houses, we would be in better shape now. … It's up to us to change. And we do have to change. Labour's lost half its members in 10 years. we can't pretend that it's just one of those things. I'm not going to spout a load of platitudes but people deserve better from us, we have to show you that we've changed. … Trade unions form the bedrock of a free society and the basis of our party and the wider labour movement. As a party, we've treated the unions badly over the last few years, that needs to change”

He also had a recent column in the Guardian “For too long the demise of the party has been treated as a convenient truth for those wanting to circumnavigate frustrating party structures and impose policies but the result has been the pursuit of an agenda that is neither in tune with our members or the country at large.”

Of the declared candidates for Deputy Leader, Cruddas is the one who progressive activists and trade unions should back to send a clear message to Gordon Brown that a change of direction is necessary. The beauty of the Deputy Leader campaign is that it allows a debate about policy and direction that the unions can participate in, without explicitly breaking from Brown. We need to recognize that for the big unions, their leaderships are going to make a calculated decision to back Brown, whatever, just to keep the doors open.

The worry I have is that most of the labour left have not grasped the significance of Cruddas’s campaign. There is not a single mention of him in this month’s Labour Left Briefing. It seems these labour Left activists have an exaggerated estaimation of the importance of the individual members of the party, and are ignoring the wider significance of the party's grounding in organised labour and the affiliated unions, where the Deputy leadership contest may well be more important than the leadership contest.

There are many dangers for the left of focusing entirely on John McDonnell’s leadership campaign, not least because he may not get on the ballot paper.

I am a supporter of John McDonell; my union branch (Wiltshire and Swindon GMB) is backing him. But some of his campaigners seem to be neglecting the fact that he will not win, and they need to prepare an end game. There is also a lot of moralism from his camp towards those activists who do not hold indiviudal membership of the Labour Party, that is entirely counterproductive. (For example the argument that the votes of individual members count more than the votes of members through affiliated u nions - this would only be true if McDonnell could win - whereas as his campaignn is really only to consolidate and demonstarte opposition, then votes in the unions are in fact more importnat than the individual members, as the unions can still exercise influence, whereas the rule changes have made the structures open to individual members entirely toothless)

The attacks on Michael Meacher are also entirely counterproductive and naïve. Michael’s campaign may be problematic, but there is no need for McDonnell’s supporters to join in the criticism of Michael. The public criticisms that Meacher is making of Blairism are correct and should be entirely welcomed, whatever the wisdom of his leadership challenge. By sniping at Meacher, and questioning the foundations of his support, the McDonnell campaign are feeding into the Life of Brian culture of the left.

The significance of Cruddas is that the hard left John McDonnell cannot win, and may not even be able to get enough parliamentary support to get on the ballot paper – but the left still needs a campaign to the left of the current party leadership, to tactically break the Party’s centre ground away from the Blairite/Brownite right.

The task at this stage is to use the leadership and deputy leadership campaigns to give the best possible platform for progressive politics opposing the neo-liberalism of a Brown government. Yes, an important component of that will be a significant vote for McDonnell. But whether or not McDonnell gets on the ballot, there will be a Deputy Leadership contest, and it is inexplicable to me that the Labour Left are not banging Cruddas’s drum more loudly

Why the left should back Jon Cruddas

I want to return to the issue of whether the left should support Jon Cruddas for deputy leader of the Labour Party. Not only is it increasingly likely that there will be no left challenge to Gordon Brown for leader, but as I have argued before, the dynamic of the Labour Party means that Cruddas’s candidature for deputy leader actually makes it less likely that McDonnell (or Meacher) will get support from the 44 MPs that they need.

Unfortunately, the forthcoming leadership election and deputy leadership contest has generated as much heat as light in blogland, about the relative merits of being in the Labour Party as an individual member. This is largely a futile argument, as we are not going to convince each other, and the key issue is how the left can work together and support each other.

I think the correct position was very well expressed by Rob Griffiths, General Secretary of the Communist Party (CPB), in a debate with me two years ago: “As far as we are concerned we will do all we can to support those in the Labour Party, and do everything we can to give unity and to help to give clarity to that fight within the Labour party and the affiliated trade unions against New Labour. There is also the important area as well of the left outside the Labour party. We will certainly be committed … to contributing as much as we can, not to the point where we will attack those in the Labour party who continue to work for left policies and socialist polices in the Labour party - we will be in solidarity with them. We won't join in any attack on those, but we will work with others on the left to try to build as much unity as we can in the left outside the Labour party. … And we would argue to both sets, we have good friends in the Labour party, we have good friends and allies outside the Labour Party, and we think, by and large, while we will continue to debate our differences of course, we believe it is futile to attack one another and say you shouldn't be over there you should be over here. We will be arguing that the left outside the Labour party should be showing as much solidarity as they can with the left inside the Labour party, and we will be arguing with our friends inside the Labour Party that they should be as much joint work, and common work and unity as possible with those outside the Labour party.”

Now of course the Labour Party leadership, and deputy leadership, contests are an issue for both those with individual Labour Party membership, and also for those of us in the affiliated trade unions.

In January there was an important article in the Morning Star, by editor, John Haylett, that described the situation we are in very well. “The trade unions, which remain the largest storehouse of pro-Labour sentiment, personnel and finance, bear key responsibility for what happens to the party that they created. They have already been conned once by the Warwick agreement, of which Hans Christian Andersen must have seen an early draft and based his Emperor's New Clothes on it. It delivered nothing for working people other than an increased level of disappointment and alienation. Today, for the labour movement, the status quo is definitely not an option. Change must come or, as Dagenham MP Jon Cruddas suggests, we could see the demise of Labour, leaving the field to barely distinguishable pro-business parties funded by the rich and by taxation. Indeed, it is difficult even to find evidence that a party of labour - rather than a neoliberal imposter party that bears the name Labour - still exists. The unions have links with most Labour MPs. Those links must be activated to let these MPs, half of whom have never broken ranks to speak out against new Labour's pro-business, pro-war agenda, know what is expected of them.”

Haylett puts it very well: “Unless Labour changes course, adopting a political approach such as that put forward by left leadership challenger John McDonnell, the future is bleak not only for Labour's short-term electoral hopes but for its very future. ”

I am sure we would all like to wake up the day after the labour leadership result is announced and find that John McDonnell is Prime Minister. But if we look at the actually existing possibilities and ask ourselves what would be the most progressive outcome and context for the continuing struggle against New Labour’s neo-liberalism, then that is probably a Gordon Brown victory, with Jon Cruddas elected deputy leader, or at least securing a very credible vote. (And make no mistake Gordon Brown PM is a preferable option to David MiniBlair PM). Of course if McDonnell does manage to get on the ballot for leader and secures a creditable vote, then that is even better still - but we all know he cannot win.

As I have argued before, “The union leaders want influence, and also want a change of direction. They will reason that backing Brown keeps them close to him, and they could maximise pressure on the new PM by backing a deputy leader closer to the unions’ agenda. As has been shown at the last two party conferences, the union leaders are very disciplined (or spineless, depending on your perspective) at sticking to their own agenda, and not supporting left initiatives over Iraq, etc. Cruddas himself has a good prospect of being not the “left candidate” but the “unions’ candidate”, in the same way that Callaghan was for leader. I think those union leaders wanting to pull Labour towards their own agenda may back Brown and Cruddas.”

So why does Cruddas suit the union leaders' agenda? It seems many on the left have missed the fundamental dynamic. The Labour Party has institutionally embedded neo-liberalism into its DNA, yet this places the Parliamentary Labour Party in a prolonged structural antagonism with the Party’s base of support within the Trade Unions. Triangulation also means that Labour Policies are not engaged with the priorities of working class voters in safe seats, which leads to apathy, disengagement and even some voting for the BNP.

Despite his background as a Blaitite, Cruddas does understand this dynamic, and has spoken against it. In his epilogue to the Rowntree Trust’s report (PDF) on the far right Cruddas wrote: “The originality of New Labour lies in the method by which policy is not deductively produced from a series of core economic or philosophical assumptions or even a body of ideas, but rather, is scientifically constructed out of the preferences and prejudices of the swing voter in the swing seat. It is a brilliant political movement whose primary objective is to reproduce itself – to achieve this it must dominate the politics of Middle England. The government is not a coalition of traditions and interests who initiate policy and debate; rather it is a power elite whose modus operandi is the retention of power. … … At root the gearing of the electoral system empties out opportunities for a radical policy agenda. On the one hand, policy is constructed on the basis of scientific analysis of the preferences of key voters; on the other, difficult issues and the prejudices of the swing voter are neutralised. Labour have become efficient at winning elections and being in government yet within a calibrated politics where tenure is inversely proportionate to change. As a politician for what is regarded as a safe working class seat the implications of this political calibration are immense. The system acts at the expense of communities like these – arguably those most in need. The science of key seat organisation and policy formation acts as a barrier to a radical emancipatory programme of economic and social change.”

Get that: “a radical emancipatory programme of economic and social change” It doesn’t matter whether or not Cruddas is sincere, or whether he will deliver. A vote for him is a vote for a change of direction from New Labour towards: “a radical emancipatory programme of economic and social change”

He may or may not be a socialist, but he is attuned to the broad social democratic agenda of the trade union leadership. If Cruddas wins, then that is a much better context for the unions to exercise influence over the direction of the Labour Party, or if they fail in that to develop alternative avenues of influence. It is my firm view that the Labour Party cannot be rescued, but whether or not I am right, the best outcome will be a result in the leadership and deputy leadership elections that demonstrates that we want to see a change of direction.

Will Cruddas eclipse McDonnell?

It seems to me that the more Jon Cruddas talks up his left credentials, the more negative impact this will have on John McDonnell’s campaign for leader.

Cruddas himself has a background as an ultra-Blairite, with a reputation of being able to maintain a good relationship with the unions. He was parachuted into a safe labour seat in 2001.

However, over the last couple of years he has increasingly distanced himself from the Blair project, and the whole New Labour strategy of “triangulating” around the issues that effect swing voters in marginal constituencies. Cruddas instead is arguing for policies that directly benefit labour core working class support.

The question here is not whether he is sincere, or whether he will deliver, but what is the political context, both of the election itself and afterwards.

We need to understand that Cruddas will probably (and however bizarrely) be the front runner left candidate for deputy leader – and that he will represent his campaign as being both loyal to Brown, and also demanding a change of direction from New Labour.

If the deputy leadership contest looks like taking on the characteristics of a real debate about the legacy of New Labour, and the future direction of the party, then this may reduce support for an actual challenge to Brown. What is more, the argument of whether or not Brown becoming leader unopposed will be seen as a coronation is likely to be overtaken by media attention to the deputy leadership, which will become a leadership contest by proxy, in the same way that the Healey/Benn contest was.

The three constituent parts of the Labour Party need to be discussed separately.

In electoral terms the MPs are very important because they are the gatekeepers who determine whether a candidate has the threshold of support to get on the ballot paper. Apart from literally a handful of hard left MPs, most of them have some aspirations to career advancement, and will want to be seen to be backing the winning leadership candidate, or at least won’t want to be associates with bad boy McDonnell. The chances of 44 of them backing McDonnell for leader is predicated upon there being a perceived need for a contest, and John attracting support wider than the committed left. But if the deputy contest is seen as being a real one, then why risk possible negative media coverage of the leadership contest, which may open up the idea that the party is divided, just when Cameron’s Tories are leading in the polls?

The union leaders want influence, and also want a change of direction. They will reason that backing Brown keeps them close to him, and they could maximise pressure on the new PM by backing a deputy leader closer to the unions’ agenda. As has been shown at the last two party conferences, the union leaders are very disciplined (or spineless, depending on your perspective) at sticking to their own agenda, and not supporting left initiatives over Iraq, etc. Cruddas himself has a good prospect of being not the “left candidate” but the “unions’ candidate”, in the same way that Callaghan was for leader. I think those union leaders wanting to pull Labour towards their own agenda may back Brown and Cruddas.

The individual membership is the least significant part of the party nowadays. McDonnell’s active support base is measurable in hundreds at most. (Which is not to say he might not get a reasonable vote (15% or so?) if he is the only challenger to Brown.) Actively backing McDonnell is to reject the strategic direction that the party has taken ever since Kinnock became leader, and only a very few will do so. Something has been made of the small numbers (re)joining the party to support McDonnell, but let us put that in perspective – Benn’s deputy leadership bid was based upon some 80000 leftists joining the party.

In my opinion, the reasonable vote that the grassroots alliance gets for the NEC elections in the constituencies is a safe protest against Blairism, within the context of overall domination of the party by the right. The left has no organisation at ward and CLP level in vast swathes of the country. Again, even in McDonnell stands, many members will want to demonstrate unity in the face of the Tories, and can signal their desire for change by voting for Cruddas.

For the left, inside and outside the party, the question is what is the best possible outcome of those that are actually on the agenda. The best possible result would be for McDonnell to stand, and do reasonably well. The next best thing is a strong vote for Cruddas, particularly from the unions. If Cruddas wins, or comes close, that will increase the leverage of organised labour over Brown. (It matters not one whit that Cruddas himself would be sure to disappoint as deputy)

(BTW, there is a very different take on this over at the epigone Lenin’s blog. This correctly identifies that Cruddas may be a stalking horse who prevents a real left candidate, but draws the incorrect tactical conclusion: it misses the point that if Cruddas becomes identified as the left candidate, then effectively he is the left candidate. I also disagree with the assessment that the UAF is a broader campaign that Searchlight.)